Group Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: rscasny
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Views 1518 views
  • Likes 3 likes
  • Comments 9 comments
Related
Recommended

When Populist Politics Meets Technological Innovation: A Sign of the Beginning of the End of IoT?

rscasny

While I spend a lot of time in my workday at element14 pouring over datasheets on new tech products or attending meetings on new tech product introductions, in my personal life, I veer to reading business publications, such as The Financial Times, which offers an array of new information (and a surprising amount of tech news, information and analysis) that impacts me both personally and professionally.

 

So, yesterday, on Saturday afternoon when the errands were done and no one was bothering me, I turned off my phone, and I did my typical thing: opened up my tablet and clicked to FT. My eye immediately was attracted to this story:

 

Tech Leaders at Davos Fret Over AI Effect on Jobs

 

The gist of the story was that the tech community (i.e., Silicon Valley) fears that since "the march of the robots" (and AI) is progressing quite rapidly, they fear a backlash with this year's new political reality: regressive and populist politics, as evidenced by new political wins in the U.S., the UK's Brexit, and other populist rumblings across Europe.

 

Initially, I didn't take too much interest in the story, which was essentially a report on the Davos economic forum. But then my eye was pulled to this story:

 

Chiefs Hold Back on Smart Factories after Backlash

 

Now, the gist of this story is that industrial enterprises (who use new technology such as robots, and support the Industry 4.0 vision of advanced manufacturing) are getting a bit squeamish regarding the introduction of more technology into their operations. They also feel like they are caught between a rock and hard place because if they do not introduce new smart (IoT-driven) technology they will be less competitive and lose jobs anyway. This story concerned me given that smart factories employ IoT technology and offer immense benefits, which I won't get into here.

 

Then I was beside myself when I saw this article:

 

How Unprepared We are for the Robot Revolution

 

The gist of this story is that "machine learning is likely to be the primary driving force behind an [ ] explosion of applications in robotics and software applications." The article gives the example of a robotic car that doesn't need any human intervention, and poses this question: how many human driving jobs will be lost due robotic cars, etc.

 

At this point, I quit reading and turned off my tablet, and paused to reflect.

 

IMO: My firm belief is that no society can survive (or has ever survived) by passing by technological innovations. I can appreciate the voice of populism; we must address the concerns and issues of all our citizens no matter what point in the social strata they reside. But are we to just give up and, in effect say, "Nope, I won't buy a computer because they put too many paper pushers out of work. Nope, I won't buy a car because they put too many wrench turners out of work. Nope, I won't do any medical research to extend the lives of human beings because they will put more funeral directors out of work."

 

I see this populist trend as risky and foolish. And it could very well be the first sign of the end of IoT technology investment -- stemming job growth in this area.

 

I personally think if "no-tech/lo-tech" jobs are being replaced by "extreme-hi-tech" jobs, then the nations of the world need to prepare its citizens appropriately. All education must be free. There should be more emphasis on compelling people into educational and training programs for the jobs of the century. Your thoughts?

 

  • in reply to Dudley

    But I'm digressing from the original article

    Yes and No.

    It's part of why humans make the decisions they do.

    If you don't understand why we make these 'unanticipated choices' you can't improve the situation, and therefore make that decision that everyone supports.

     

    If a business decides to do something that the public believe is wrong, then they may get a backlash.

    Here is a really good example  Cadbury stops using palm oil in chocolate | Stuff.co.nz

     

     

     

    I recall one plane crash investigation where the pilots decided to land on an abandoned field and side slipped the jet to reduce speed, then retracted the nose wheel to stop it hitting people on the field..

    The side slip was something the pilot had learnt from his days of gliding, and could never be programmed into a computer as a valid decision choice, despite it having a favourable outcome (apart from some metalwork)

     

     

    In my case I figured that the driverless car cannot anticipate what the pedestrian will do, they may choose to run, jump or push someone else out of the way, which skews the expected result.

    I also figured (from first hand experience) that crashes in modern cars protect the occupants much more than you think.

     

    I did find it interesting that a driverless car could anticipate the occupation of the pedestrian from the few seconds and what they were wearing ... and it therefore biases the results ....

     

     

    Mark

  • in reply to mcb1

    My logic was that anyone who gets into a driverless car has bought into the risk. But a pedestrian has not. So if the car has to choose between killing someone inside the car, versus someone outside the car, it should choose people inside the car.

     

    However, I suspect that decision would get me fired from coding on driverless cars - it's not a popular decision if you are trying to point out how safe they are image

     

    And pilots have been known to make similar decisions. I'm struggling to find an definitive citation, but I'm pretty certain that this incident was one where in the last five seconds, realising that they had no chance, the pilot nosedived the plane into a field rather than hit the freeway and potentially a mall. It's not the only example though (I'm in the middle of my work day and don't really want to go pouring through NTSB reports). Self-interest is also at play here, as generally you are more likely to survive coming down in a field than coming down on a house. But ultimately if it comes to crunch time everyone on a plane have bought into the (very small) risk of the plane crashing, whereas people on the ground have not bought into the risk of planes landing on their head or roof.

     

    But I'm digressing from the original article image

  • in reply to Dudley

    A brilliant link, thanks for sharing it.

    While this one demonstrated a very simplistic version of pedestrian v passenger, there are multiple other factors that do come into play.

     

    Mark

  • in reply to Dudley

    Luckily you decided not to continue flying here.

    You should see our decision tree about bugsmashers image

  • in reply to mcb1

    In answer to your first point about the morality of driverless car AI.

     

    Moral Machine

     

    This is a very fascinating insight into the sorts of decisions a coder somewhere has to make about what to do at the extreme edges of the codes decision making.

     

    I won't say the tack I took when I did the test because I don't want to you to prejudge. But if I were a benevolent dictator, I'd be having the car make the same decision, but for a different reason than the one implied.